AJAY TIWARI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These proceedings emanate from a complaint, dated 9th September, 2008, submitted by Ms. "M" (whose name is being withheld, for the sake of propriety), an M. Phil. Student in the Department of Hindi, University of Delhi, wherein she alleged that she had been sexually harassed by the petitioner who, at the time, was a Professor in the said Department. The complaint was referred to the Apex Complaints Committee (hereinafter referred to as "ACC"), under Ordinance XV-D of the Ordinances governing the University of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the University"). The ACC found the allegation of sexual harassment, against the petitioner, to be proved, and forwarded its findings, along with the recommendation that the petitioner be demoted with reduction of salary, and be debarred from (i) holding any administrative position for the remainder of his service, (ii) membership of any selection committee in the University and (iii) appointment as research supervisor, in the Department of Hindi, in future, to the Executive Council (hereinafter referred to as "EC"), through the Vice-Chancellor. A copy of the findings and recommendations of the ACC were also furnished to the petitioner, who submitted his response, thereto, on 20th May, 2009. The EC, vide its Resolution dated 26th June, 2009, opined that the petitioner had committed a serious act of misconduct and, accordingly, issued a Show Cause Notice, dated 29th June, 2009, to the petitioner, requiring him to show cause as to why his services be not disengaged. The reply of the petitioner, to the said Show Cause Notice, was referred back to the ACC, which forwarded its report, containing its comments and observations on the Show Cause Notice dated 29th June, 2009, and the response of the petitioner thereto, to the EC, on 14th October, 2009.

(2.) In the interregnum, the Supreme Court, on 12th January, 2010, passed an order in Delhi University v. Bidyug Chakraborty, SLP (C) 23060/2009 acceding to the request of the respondent in that case - who had also been charged with sexual harassment - for permission to cross examine witnesses produced by the University. While doing so, the Supreme Court permitted the respondent Bidyug Chakraborty, before it, to submit a questionnaire, to which responses would be sought, from the witnesses. Following this precedent, the petitioner was also directed to submit a questionnaire, to which the response of "M" would be sought. The petitioner did so. However, as "M" did not respond to the questions, or cooperate, the University wrote, on 12th May, 2010, to the petitioner, informing him that, owing to non-co-operation by "M", in the process of cross-examination, the proceedings were closed. Challenging this decision, "M" moved this Court, by way of WP (C) 8208/2010. During the pendency of the said writ petition, however, the impugned Memorandum, dated 4th or 8th July, 2011, came to be issued, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from the services of the University. In view thereof, WP (C) 8208/2010, insofar as it sought relief against the petitioner, did not survive, as noted by this Court in its order dated 5th July, 2011, whereby the said writ petition was disposed of.

(3.) The impugned Memorandum, dated 4th/8th July, 2011 states that the ACC forwarded a report, to the EC, vide letter dated 31st August, 2010 and that, having considered the said report, the EC, accepting the findings therein, resolved that the petitioner be compulsorily retired.